Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-09
Requested 2015-08-27
Authors Adrian Farrel, Daniel King, Yao Li, Fatai Zhang
Draft last updated 2015-09-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04-genart-lc-sparks-2015-09-02
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-02


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2 Sep 2015
IETF LC End Date: 9 Sep 2015
IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

One thing I'd like to check, and I suspect this pokes at a conversation 

that has already happened (as hinted in the acknowledgements section):

The discussion of managements systems having to deal with a 64 bit 

wavelength label caught my eye. This is an RFC3471 section label 

isn't it? That document shows wavelength labels as 32 bit things. Has 

something updated 3471 to say to expect a multiple of 32 bits, and not 

32 bits specifically? If not, maybe this document would be a good place 

to do so explicitly, rather than what appears to be fiat at the moment?

micro-nit: at the end of the introduction "in that regard" suggests the 

document updates the work of the ITU-T in some other regard? I suggest 

simple deleting the phrase.